Quote of the Day: I Don’t Think “Right” Means What You Think It Means Edition

“You and I have a God-given right to live in a safe environment. Owning a gun is also a privilege under this right. However, just as laws are required to insure and protect our rights to liberty, there should also be laws governing our privileges in owning a gun or any weapon of destruction. Think about it; If my individual right to own any type of a gun or weapon supersedes our individual right to be in a safe environment, expecting our families to be reasonably secure in our belief that we will not find ourselves next door to someone with 50 assault rifles and 10 homemade bombs, then our basic rights are forfeited.” – Bill Thompson, LETTER: Resisting gun control is for the weak-minded [via dailyrecrod.com]

I think it is worse, he is confusing rationalizing his desire for gun control by attempting to undermine the definition of words like Rights. If anything it seems more like he is trying to redefine “Rights” as “Slavery”, albeit “common sense” slavery. /sarc

At the extreme end of the left, there is no belief in rights. At that extreme, we all exist solely to fulfill the utopian plan of the anointed elites. I have liberal friends who have actually said that freedom is dangerous, not to the individual but to society. They really are out there.

Just a note: When talking about the Liberals, use the capital “L” to differentiate from the actual liberal folks. These Liberals want Socialism and control over aspects they have no business controlling. They want government control over everyone’s lives. They wish to elevate one person’s freedom above yours. anything that does not fit their agenda is to be banished.

The true extreme of the liberal is the anarchist. While the Liberals exhibit SOME of those qualities, they still want the government to force the undesirables to fall in line with their agenda.

Of course Conservatives are not true conservatives either. Real conservatism would be forcing people to fall in line with established norms. And so would at it’s extreme be fascism. Modern US Conservatives are more like liberals(small L) in that we want the government to leave us alone(Libertarian).

Freedom is dangerous to the collective, but it is the collective that is dangerous to society. Humans are hard wired to be at their best when they have individual liberty, but have also accepted that this does not include power over others.

“I have liberal friends who have actually said that freedom is dangerous, not to the individual but to society.”

No offense to you but, F@$K your Liberal friends. No, literally, F@$K them. At the same time tell them that their individual sovereignty is a threat to society as a whole, they’ll understand.. (heavy sarc)

Side note: I think the aforementioned treatment of Liberals is how the popular firearms lubricant “Liberal Tears” is synthesized.. (heavy sarc………………………mmmmmmmayyyybe)

If we had a God given right to live in a safe environment then God wouldn’t have made sharks, bears, lions, cougars, tigers, hippos, alligators, crocodiles, snakes, wolves, etc. It’s up to us to make our environment safe.

Friendly being a bi-word for aggressive in this instance. But is that really a bad thing??? There’s nothing wrong with gettin’ dat ‘older berry’. You know how it goes, ‘the older the berry, the sweeter the juice.’ ;D

In the words of Ben Franklin: “We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy. The miracle in question was only performed to hasten the operation, under circumstances of present necessity, which required it.“

Did you watch Sons Of Liberty on The History Channel?
It was historical drama but it was pretty good. They made Paul Revere out to be Captain America and John Handcock out to be ambiguously gay. Our man Ben Franklin saved the Declaration. The Virginian, GW, was intense. Good stuff!

This. There is no God given right to a safe environment. God hasn’t provided it here on earth, and mankind sure as hell can’t provide it. We weren’t given the strength, teeth or claws to face a bear, or the speed to outrun one. We were given a mind for finding a way to defend against that threat, and any other threats.

Which right in the bill of rights discusses safe environments? And feeling safe?… You want that right? Create an amendment that reads “in order for people to feel safe, not necessarily be safe, they have the right to trample on all other rights… The 1st, 2nd and 4th especially”….

Guys like to hate on James Yeager but this is another thing he says that makes so much sense to me. He says “safety is a myth”.

At my work, every day we have a briefing. The boss man tells us a bunch of stuff we already know then at the end of every address, he says “safety is our number one goal”. I always shake my head and think, “If safety is their number one goal then I should have stayed home today”. “Because I am here to make money”.

OSHA is another Federal scam designed to grow government and legitimize spending.

He got the privilege and right flipped flopped. He has the privilege of living in a safe environment due to the right to keep and bare arms. As long as other exercise that right, he can continue to have that privilege.

I just recall seeing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being mentioned by the founding fathers – nothing in their about guarantees of safety, free health care, education, or happiness. I guess pursuing gun control makes some people happy, but there’s no guarantee (and in fact an actual right preventing) their success.

During the statists’ march to control during the first half of the last century, a fascist by the name of Franklin Roosevelt came up with a new “Bill of Rights” that included fairy tales like “freedom from want”. THATS where this garbage came from. Funny how all that progress went on, but my mom was born into a community in 1947 with no telephone, no electricity, and no running water, well after all of the New Deal boondoggles had run out of money, changed names, or faded away.

Wow! Laws help establish a civilization, not protect rights. Often laws are written with intent to curtail rights like free speech (campaign finance anyone).

Second, where is this right to a safe environment? Our Declaration of Independence stated we want the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Constitution says nothing about safe environment.

Last, when you stoop to ad hominem attacks by calling your opponents weak minded, you have no argument, just emotional rage and hatred for those with different views.

To a liberal/progressive/statist (whatever label they’re hiding behind at the moment) , a “right” is whatever it is convenient for them to define it as at that particular moment in time. It will change depending on the group being addressed or the days agenda.

Second, where is this right to a safe environment? Our Declaration of Independence stated we want the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Constitution says nothing about safe environment.

The great irony, of course, is that the founders risked every aspect of a safe environment in order to secure the liberties for which they fought:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This reversal is ideological and contrary to the founding principles of this country. It is also very typical of progressivism. It reflects, however, the common perception of “security” from the European perspective.

This is why it’s important to understand what the words your opponents use mean to them.

He says there is a background check to register to vote, buy and register a car. Huh.
Who’d a thunk. I don’t remember waiting while the registrar or gent I bought my truck from while they called the state police.
They must have done it when I wasn’t looking.

Here in NC, there is a heap of resistance just to the idea of voter’s identifying they are who they say they are (Voter ID), much less a “background check.” I don’t even want to imagine the flip-out that would occur if that was suggested.

I don’t personally partake (although I’m not one to judge), but I assume it works a little like alcohol in that a couple of beers helps loosen your tongue whereas a couple of twelve packs turns you into a blathering idiot. Paranoia, delusions and actual shrinking of the brain are associated with heavy marijuana use, so it seems to fit his profile.

And he is concerned about someone owning 50 rifles why? Is the guy going to rig them up with 2x4s and string to broadside his home? I know there is no rational answer to this question but what practical issue could arise from one man having more than say three firearms at hand? Beyond a rifle a sidearm and (perhaps) a third specialized weapon having redundant capacity dose not make a single man any more formidable.

They lie, manipulate and obfuscate at every turn. He’s saying these words, but that does not mean he believes that tripe….or all of it at least. It means he thinks it will persuade someone else to believe it.

This was just an excerpt. The full letter is even worse, if you can believe it. (Spoiler alert: the NRA is bad, m’kay?)

Also this little gem caught my eye:
“Every person in America has the right to feel safe in his or her home all the time, our constitution guarantees it, “The right to the pursuit of happiness.” ”

First, whoever gave him a pass for 8th grade reading comprehension shouldn’t have been a teacher. Second, no, it doesn’t. And even if it did mean what he thinks it does, what if my pursuit of happiness involves owning guns? Who made his right more important than mine? Talk about solipsistic and narcissistic.

I’m getting tired of this “right” that everyone trumpets about living in a safe environment. Where the fk to they come up with this? What amendment was that?
This chaps me just about as much as people who troll comments after a serious tragedy asking why God would allow something like that to happen. Nowhere in the Bible does it say life here on earth will be happy and without death and sadness or pain, in fact it said the exact opposite from nearly the first chapter when death and suffering entered the world after the fall and then later on when Jesus basically said if you follow Me people will hate you and may even kill you.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say your neighbor will never try and kill you or accidentally blow your house up, and it most certainly never says you can arbitrarily trample on his rights just because you are afraid he might do that. It does however say “shall not be infringed” and it only does so once in the entire document, and that is in the second amendment. That pretty much seems like the framers knew we lived in a dangerous world and rather than forcing everyone to pretend they had a right to be safe it gave them a right to defend themselves from all the unsafe people who might try and hurt them.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

‘All of this in their misguided attempt to make the government our enemy instead of our protector.’

And what do you suppose he’s prepared to do when his protectors become his enemies? Climb into the cattle car and do what he’s told? Toil in the labor camp? Strip off his clothes and walk into the showers? He’s obviously not a student of history. Governments have a long history of abusing individuals and the most vile acts in the history of man have been committed under the guise of ‘protecting’ the people.

“You and I have a God-given right to live in a safe environment.” — Bill Thompson

I’ll tell you Mr. Thompson why NO ONE has any such right: because it is impossible to define.

What are the units of measure for danger in an environment? Exactly what is the cutoff between an acceptable number and too many danger units? If there are too many danger units in your environment, who is legally obligated to change the environment?

More importantly, how exactly does an armed person (not a violent criminal) make the environment more dangerous? How does a neighbor with 50 semi-automatic rifles make the environment more dangerous?

I propose we ban driving. Far too dangerous. Tens of thousands of people dying every year and hundreds of thousands maimed all so we can get where we’re going faster. If we’re going to have a safe environment the first thing that has to do is ban driving cars.

I read the entire article and Bill Thompson is completely ignorant of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He has no understanding of the how or why this Country was founded. Which is not surprising when it seems he has no understanding of the real world.

“…I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons…” “…This [Assault Weapons Ban Of 2013] does not prohibit…it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat?”
Dianne Feinstein

So much fail in this “educated” woman’s comments that I hardly know where to begin.

First, she doesn’t care that people get shot or the fact that people that get shot often die. Her concern is the amount of damage done to the bodies. Forget the fact that just as much damage can be done with her exempted weapons.

Second, bullets don’t…aw fuck it!
Third, The bill was called the Assault Weapons Ban Of 2013. I don’t know where she comes from but where I am from, a ban means you prohibit something.

Fourth, do I need a bazooka? Well, I didn’t until her and her type of tyrant assholes took over the Federal government. Now I think a bazooka is not nearly enough firepower held by the people of the United States.

Fifth, Do we need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I would say that is a definite yes because if I have to kill someone, it is going to be at close range otherwise, I won’t be able to prove that I was defending myself if I was 500 yards away from my target. Unless of course, we are in a civil war and that further gives me the right to bear the same arms as the military. See, I can’t predict the future to be able to say that the military will be on the side of the people or the side of tyranny. That is why “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Who else caught that blatant attempt to put gun owners on the same level as child pornographers?

Child pornography is outside the protection of the 1st Amendment because it creates a victim….not because it is disgusting, shocking or offensive, because there is basically no speech that is guaranteed not to cause somebody, somewhere, to feel disgusted, shocked or offended. Speech that incites violence is held to a similar standard and generally falls outside the protection of the 1A.

Guns, no matter how “high powered,” do not create victims, and are not capable of crime. But here’s the key — these people don’t believe that. They literally and sincerely believe that guns themselves are the cause of violence, that they incite people to commit atrocities.

The antis will mock me for saying this, but guns do not create victims any more than a rock, a baseball bat, a hammer, a rope tied into a noose, a shoe, a fist, an overdose of pills or a leap off a high bridge does. People’s actions create victims. All of those items are simply an extension of people’s will.

We humans live under one set of rules governed by Nature; the most basic of which is survival of the fittest. We can choose to deny this simple truth (liberals, progressives, Democrats), or not. This is the difference between us. Some of us understand reality and some of us don’t.

If you want to have some fun, go to the comments and read Terry McKenna. He uses a lot of “facts” and talking points While heaping insults at gun owners as uneducated. For being supposedly educated he lacks critical thinking skills.

Yeah? BS! Let’s start prioritizing Rights and see how that works. Then we can all be as “weak-minded” as this fool.

But if you want to do that, then let’s make RKBA #!, because, if you cannot defend yourself first and foremost, all the rest of your “Rights” don’t mean anything. Rights are interdependent and have no priority because none has value without the others fully in place uninfringed, unrestricted, unabridged and unregulated.

It is YOU, Bill Thompson, to whom “Rights” doesn’t mean what YOU think it means. Go jump in a manure pile.

So I get a background check to buy a gun, and nothing comes back, so I get my gun. A criminal with a record goes to get the same kind of gun, gets a background check, and it comes back denied. He walks out and continues to go about his business to find a gun. Why, oh, why, won’t the government round these turds up, if there are as many ‘criminals’ denied as they say there are, and prosecute them under current law? Why do these antis want to come up with new hoops to jump through? Don’t answer that; I know, I know…

It isn’t against the law to attempt to buy a gun, fill out a 4473 honestly, and get denied. Any number of things can result in a false denial, or a wait on clearance. If the form was not falsified, or “knowingly” falsified, no crime has been committed.

Sounds logical at first reading, but after a cup of coffee, the obvious comes out:
50 assault rifles and 10 homemade bombs will never harm you just sitting there next door!!
Again, guns don’t kill people….. you know the rest…

The Bill of Rights repeatedly uses the phrase “The right of the people” (amendments 1, 2, 4) one cannot quibble that the second means only the National Guard or only muskets without gutting other amendments.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, there was debate that while “Everybody knew” the rights of the people, writing the rights down and limiting the government was still needed. The Bill of Rights clearly stated some of the rights people naturally have. Note, these rights weren’t granted by the government but innate and the government couldn’t restarted them.

People who cannot properly recognize natural distinctions bother the hell out of me.

Nobody has a “right” to live in a safe environment. Safety is an achievement, not something granted by nature or nature’s God. In order to pursue the value of safety, we have a right to defend ourselves from harm. It is a right to defend oneself from harm. Humans – being tool-using creatures in nature – have the natural right to make/use tools for the purpose of defending themselves and their lives. We call these tools “arms” whether they are clubs, arrows or firearms.

We therefore have a right to arms as an extension of being human beings, defending ourselves to achieve as much safety as is (humanly) possible and practical.

To suggest that there is a “right to safety”, while proposing to prevent the means (and rights) by which it can be achieved, is contradictory and nonsensical.

I prefer the sentiment expressed by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Life is fraught with danger – i.e. elements that represent risks to safety. The world is unsafe. Our environment is unsafe. Living as a free person and realizing our God-given right to liberty means accepting that we must face or mitigate the inherent risks in life.

I would go so far as to say that anyone who seeks a “safe environment” is not really living free at all, and is probably a coward.

Owning a gun is also a privilege under this right.

The right to own a gun derives not from some fictional “right to live in a safe environment”, but rather from our God-given right to life, from which derives the right to defend our lives.

Am individual right to own guns cannot supersede the right to live in a safe environment because it is not in conflict with that right. They are complimentary, and as such restricting the right to own guns also restricts the right to be safe.

Yeah, the guy that wrote that letter sounds like an idiot, so many of the anti gun people seem incapable of critical thinking. it’s almost like someone writes these things for idiots like him and he just posted it, without thinking of stupid it sounds.
on the other hand, I am very envious of whoever has that wall of guns in his house.

i think the biggest problem here isn’t that people don’t know what safe is or don’t know what right is. They don’t know what LAW means. A law doesn’t stop crime or offer protection. A law codifies an event and limits the punishment that can be assigned to the act. A law can make you a criminal but cannot prevent a crime. Only a person can stop a crime either by not committing it or by opposing the action of the one doing it.

I had a friend assaulted and battered yesterday and no one would step up- I’m betting it’s not because they didn’t want to, but more probably because they didn’t have the ability to guarantee their safety. Luckily she will be fine, though I’m pretty sure she has lost her illusion of safety.

When the pack of wolves surrounded the caveman and began closing in, the caveman shouted, “I have a god given right to live in a safe environment!” The wolves then said, “oh, that’s right, sorry we’ll be on our way.”

Evan,
You are exactly correct. There are people who actually think the world has no evil or that evil will never impact anyone they know or care about. The are delusional. And they construct this fabricated world of theirs and try to convince the rest of us that it is real. Wow, and they get to vote.

Saftey is a condition people individually create for themselves. There is no god given or natural right to saftey…….there IS, however, a natural right to self defense that every living thing comes into the world with…..

BTW Bill, the environment isn’t safe. Ask anyone that has died from “exposure”. Bill, stop, you can’t really ask a dead person. Well, you can but they won’t answer (and if they do you can’t own a gun cause the Constitution says so). Try a relative or friend.

Poor guy would freak if he was my neighbor. I don’t have 50 “assault” weapons but I have several rifles with ergonomic features that the military likes. I also have multiple handguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. And I guess if you consider the couple hundred pounds of aluminum nitrate I use to make exploding targets, then I have bombs. I’m sure someone as parinoid as this idiot would also consider the pounds of reloading powder explosives, it does say that on the jugs. I feel very safe in my environment and the neighbors who know me do to.

I read the entire letter. Wow, I counted 23 straw man primers. The entire letter premises itself upon an agree with my viewpoint or your a monster. Very eye opening that there are people this stupid who get to vote. See, I can do it too.

“Owning a gun is also a privilege under this right. However, just as laws are required to insure and protect our rights to liberty, there should also be laws governing our privileges in owning a gun or any weapon of destruction.”

Man, I’m glad Mr. Thompson cleared that up.

I was under the assumption that the Second Amendment was one of the “Bill of Rights”, not one of the “Bill of ‘Privileges’”.

There is no right to a safe existence because it is IMPOSSIBLE to create an absolute one, thus we have the right to own items to use in self defense against those who attempt to harm us. It’s a simple concept and therefore Liberals can’t possibly understand it.

We need laws to enforce laws. And if those law enforcing laws aren’t effective, then we’ll pass more laws. If those measures are unsuccessful, then we’ll have to pass…..mega…laws!! And if the law enforcing mega laws don’t cut it, we’ll pass more mega laws! Should the mega laws enforcing the mega laws that are enforcing the laws not be sufficient, then we’ll pass………….oober………..laws….. And all the while your civil liberties and mine are done away with by the stroke of a pen and the will of Benedict Arnold’s, pseudo idealogical American’s and modern day Quislings.

but then, its NJ and if you read Stonewalled, you know most media outlets send out a request for a particular topic to be addressed- according to the meme of the day, delivered from on high by TPM, to the reliable idiots and Journolistas…

This is another minor but useful milestone for the level of desperate hysteria on the Left, at this last gasp of Progressivism v2.0,

before it collapses of the weight of its own top-heavy postmodern cultural marxist nitwittery, just have other failed tyrannies of the left, Socialism, Nazism, Maoism, Islamism, and the slow implosion of same underway around the world, notably in Cuba, Venezuela…and parts of the Eurosocialist versions over the Atlantic.

Here is another resource, if you want to sanity check media entities or authors, for a pattern of bias and agitprop.

He is just confused. Where was anyone told they had, not given, the right to live in a safe environment? Everything that is a right fairly spells.out that we do not live in a safe environment. The universe is 99.999999999999999% hostile to human live. If you are told you have a right to live in a safe environment you are listening to a liar.

After that, among sooo many other things, the argument completely falls apart.

This letter to the editor is a terrific case study in the paranoid hysteria typical of anti gunners — a web of illogic, ad hominem attacks and falsities masquerading as fact, all surrounding an irrational and emotion-based position.

In my view, the curious part of this whole phenomenon is that the false defenses surrounding the hysterical anti’s point of view are completely unnecessary, because that person is in denial to begin with, and would simply refuse to recognize any reasonable counterpoint or illumination of the flaws of their position. So while they naturally pretend that their defenses are effective, the truth is that no reason will ever penetrate the fingers-in-ears-because-guns barrier that surrounds their extremely fragile premise.

In the end analysis, their silly rationale, distorted statistics, made-up “rights” and childish denial of actual facts serve only to expose the indefensibility of their position. They would do better, actually, if they stayed out of the logical world completely and simply stuck to pure emotion and denial.